(Based on Dr. Peter Samuels’ “Bear Eating Fish” Framework)
Goal: Make your proposal irresistible to reviewers by ensuring all “high-protein parts” — clarity, rationale, structure, and credibility — are strong and visible.
PART 1: Front Matter — Capture Attention Instantly
| ✅ Checklist Item | Questions to Ask Yourself | Notes/Status |
| Title | Is your title short, specific, and informative? Does it tell the reader exactly what the study is about? | |
| Aim | Is your aim one concise sentence that clearly explains what you intend to achieve? | |
| Objectives | Do you have 3–5 measurable objectives that logically connect to your aim? | |
| Research Questions | Are your questions clear, focused, and answerable within your time and resources? |
💡 Tip: Your title, aim, and objectives should all tell one coherent story.
PART 2: Rationale — Persuade with Purpose
| ✅ Checklist Item | Questions to Ask Yourself | Notes/Status |
| Background | Does your background briefly set the scene without overloading the reader? | |
| Problem Statement | Have you clearly described the gap, problem, or opportunity your study addresses? | |
| Rationale | Does your rationale explain why this research matters (to theory, practice, or policy)? | |
| Significance | Have you shown how your findings could benefit others (businesses, scholars, communities)? |
🧠 Reviewers want to believe in your project’s value — not just understand it.
PART 3: Structure & Academic Style — Guide the Reader
| ✅ Checklist Item | Questions to Ask Yourself | Notes/Status |
| Logical Flow | Does each section lead smoothly to the next using clear transitions? | |
| Section Headings | Are your headings informative (not vague, e.g., “Analysis Plan” instead of “Details”)? | |
| Paragraph Structure | Does each paragraph contain one main idea + evidence + mini-conclusion? | |
| Writing Style | Is your tone formal, objective, and clear (no jargon or filler words)? | |
| Reader Focus | Have you anticipated reviewers’ questions and answered them proactively? |
PART 4: Evidence & Integrity — Prove You’re Credible
| ✅ Checklist Item | Questions to Ask Yourself | Notes/Status |
| Literature Review | Have you summarized key sources and shown what’s missing in the current research? | |
| Use of Sources | Do you cite accurately, avoiding plagiarism and over-reliance on direct quotes? | |
| Critical Analysis | Have you compared, evaluated, and synthesized ideas (not just listed them)? | |
| Referencing Style | Is your reference list complete and formatted consistently (e.g., Harvard, APA)? |
🧩 Samuels: “Using evidence correctly is how reviewers judge your academic maturity.”
PART 5: Methodology — Build Reviewer Confidence
| ✅ Checklist Item | Questions to Ask Yourself | Notes/Status |
| Research Design | Have you clearly stated whether your study is qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods? | |
| Data Collection | Have you explained how and why you will collect your data this way? | |
| Data Analysis Plan | Do you specify how you’ll analyze the data (software, approach, coding, statistics)? | |
| Ethics & Limitations | Have you addressed potential risks, consent, bias, and study limitations honestly? | |
| Timeline (Gantt Chart) | Have you included a realistic timeline with milestones? |
🕒 Reviewers want to see that your project is not only interesting but doable.
PART 6: Finishing Touches — Make It Easy to Read
| ✅ Checklist Item | Questions to Ask Yourself | Notes/Status |
| Visual Clarity | Is your layout clean with spacing, headings, and readable fonts? | |
| Word Count | Is your proposal within the limit but rich in key content? | |
| Proofreading | Have you read it aloud to catch awkward phrasing or missing logic? | |
| Feedback | Have you asked someone unfamiliar with your topic to review it for clarity? |
🪶 If your reviewer can read it once and understand your argument, you’ve won.
PART 7: The “Bear Test” — Final Self-Evaluation
| 🐻 The Bear Test | Yes / No |
| Can the reviewer “taste” your aim clearly within the first paragraph? | |
| Are your rationale and methods visible and persuasive within a quick skim? | |
| Does your proposal avoid unnecessary jargon or filler content? | |
| Would a busy reviewer find your structure intuitive and your ideas credible? |
Research Proposal Impact Checklist
